4.7 Article

A Linear Dose-Response Relationship between Fasting Plasma Glucose and Colorectal Cancer Risk: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 5, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep17591

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81272655]
  2. Research Fund for Public Welfare in the Health Industry, Health Ministry of China [201402015]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

For many years, the question of whether hyperglycaemia, a manifestation of prediabetes, diabetes mellitus and metabolic syndrome, is a risk factor for colorectal cancer has been intensely studied. In fact, even after the conclusion of several prospective studies, the topic is still controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the dose-response relationship between blood glucose concentration and the incidence of colorectal cancer. A linear (P = 0.303 for non-linearity) dose-response relationship was observed between fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and colorectal cancer risk without significant heterogeneity. The relative risk (RR) for colorectal cancer per 20 mg/dL increase in FPG was 1.015 (95% CI: 1.012-1.019, P = 0.000). In subgroup analyses, the pooled RRs for colon cancer (CC) and rectal cancer (RC) studies were 1.035 (95% CI 1.008-1.062, P = 0.011) and 1.031 (95% CI: 0.189-5.628, P = 0.972), respectively; in the analysis comparing men and women, the pooled RRs were 1.016 (95% CI: 1.012-1.020, P = 0.000) and 1.011 (95% CI: 0.995-1.027, P = 0.164), respectively. Sensitivity analyses using two methods showed similar results. In conclusion, there is a significant linear dose-response relationship between FPG and the incidence risk of colorectal cancer. For people with diabetes or prediabetes, controlling blood glucose might be useful to prevent colorectal cancer.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available